"It's Sacrifice, Bob, But Not As We Know It..."

I was thinking recently of the word 'sacrifice' and its negative connotations, given that it is dawning on people everywhere that it is going to take considerable sacrifice to make the changes needed for life to continue on a swiftly-warming planet.

As someone who started off as a devout Evangelical Christian, the word 'sacrifice' will always have associations with Jesus Christ's death on the cross; an act that bought humankind back from sin and saved all from an eternity of damnation.

While I have drifted from that standpoint, 'sacrifice', to my ears at least, means a painful surrender of something precious - most often for little or no return.

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Sac·ri·fice

Pronunciation: \ˈsa-krə-ˌfīs, also -fəs or -ˌfīz\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin sacrificium, from sacr-, sacer (sacred) + facere (to make)

Making sacred.

I'm betting that that's not what we understand when annoying green-niks, eco-activists and concerned people from every field push the 'S' word at us in response to global warming and the climate crisis.

Sacrifice, these persistent folks bluntly tell us, is what is required of everyone.

We must do without, curb our instincts toward personal security and pleasure, learn to live with less, adjust to diminished resources and anticipate and head off further environmental destruction by willingly giving up many of the things and habits we associate with an acceptable standard of living.

That's a big big no-no for us in the Developed World. Why should we, who are accustomed to plenty, to a life of comparative ease and to the right - nay, the childhood-instilled imperative - to pursue the even better be asked to undergo something so painful. And voluntarily, to boot?

Surely, it makes far more sense for those who already have nothing, who are already used to enjoying nothing, who are children and heirs to nothing, to give away what they don't have?

Actually, re-read that sentence; it makes no sense at all.

Of course it is we, the privileged, who must sacrifice. But - and here's the good news - sacrifice isn't what we think it is.

Sacrifice is, literally, the act of making sacred.

When Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times' eco-blog Dot Earth recently proposed: "A Few (Hundred) Things the Next President Can Do to Limit Warming", he drew this response from one disheartened reader, commenting on her compatriots' likely rejection of any measures requiring them to modify their lifestyles:

"While it is all fine and dandy to promote alternative energy sources such as windfarms and biofuels, I think it’s safe to say that those types of technologies are not able to support American’s huge demand for energy. And I say “demand” because “need” doesn’t fit the bill.

"Without a huge stress on conservation, it’s just pandering to the public. Americans want to hear that we can go on driving our Hummers fifty thousand miles a year, sit in our over-heated and over-air-conditioned homes and offices, consume products like they are going out of style and not have to change any of our own personal habits."

You can read the actual post here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/a-few-things-the-next-president-can-do-to-limit-warming/

But to go back to my original point: what if sacrifice, willingly entered into, was liberating. What if - putting aside for the moment the dire emergency we are facing, and in the spirit of a great experiment - we tried the following:

• Walking or cycling (or taking public transport) when we desire to pay a visit to the nearby convenience store/bank/post office, instead of driving.

• Turning off, or at least hibernating, our computers/electrical appliances when we're not using them.

• Avoiding the purchase of imported produce and opting to buy local, seasonal goods instead.

• Washing our clothes with cold, not hot water, and hanging them up to dry if we have the space/means.
• Replacing our energy-inefficient lightbulbs with the new, greener, longer-life ones.
  
• Recycling our glass, plastic, paper, and aluminium household waste - not to mention batteries.
• Wearing our old clothes for longer (and learning to mend them) before replacing them - and considering buying second-hand, good condition garments when we do decide to add to our wardrobes.

• Borrowing books from local libraries before buying them.

These are much publicised and really rather tiny measures toward a greener lifestyle. But while they're a start in the right direction, they are surprisingly resisted still in many parts of the Developed World.

Why? Because the idea is anathema to how we've been brought up, how we've been programmed to think.

And yet, if we can think of 'sacrifice' as a way of freeing up our spaces (eliminating the need to store more and more belongings), buying more prudently while still maintaining a healthy diet (less strain on land and ecosystems) and learning to take joy in the fact that we have a special relationship with all that lives, we can stare down the threat of 'sacrificing' our lifestyle to save our planet, and instead embrace 'making sacred' our actions to enjoy the only home our species has.

Before you think I'm a self-righteous, moralising, patronising pseudo-prophet, let me make clear that I'm as addicted to my privileged Westerner lifestyle as the next person. And God knows there's plenty I still need to do in order to live more 'lightly' on the earth.

But making my life and my actions sacred seems far more attractive to me than feeling I have to act out of a grudging, near-punitive surrender to the exigencies of the time.